Fluoride in tap water

Evil_Dan

withabix wrote: »

And your point is?

Nobody is forced to drink tap water. Other sources are available and you are free to choose to drink them if you are not satisfied with the water supplied to your tap with a legal chemical composition.

Reported your abusive post for your trouble

I have to say however, that many other sites would regards what you put as idiocy - And others would have put something similar to what Tbs posted - i know i certainly would!

If you are going to state something, put it simply: not in a way that could be misconstrued by others.

Evil_Dan

melancholly wrote: »

my point about being a science postgrad was to say that i understand things like 'athens passwords' and publishing (i personally found your post a bit patronising!)

However, i don't see how tbs could help how you felt on something you said....?

i'm also not 'over-riding' anyone's wishes - i don't have the power to anyway so i don't understand that comment at all! odd choice of words that doesn't make much sense!

I think what tbs means is that just because you believe there is no issue, then it doesn't mean that everyone else should have to comply to your wishes.

i'm stating that my opinion is informed by perhaps more of the scientific understanding of disease processes, rather than pure epidemiology of incidence which is what most of the claims made here seem to be based on.

Funny that, as i can see that if many of the links explaining the evidence are followed, they seem to crop up on medical journals, dentistry sites, government sponsored sites etc..... Now if they don't have some correct scientific understanding, then theres something wrong....

- it was entirely separate from my point about TS! there was a much earlier post being rude to TS and the comment on expensive veneers was a bit off - that was the only reason for my comment on that - it was getting personal!!

I personally feel that the comment was perfectly in context. And how was it personal - just by saying that the expenses of veneers are quite high? And plus, TS has already said that he can fight his own battles...

my fuzzy stats..... again, as with the post meekgeek, i'd take you more seriously if you managed not to get personal. i always take major issue with any arguement where the aim seems to be to undermine the opposition rather than tackling it directly!

meekgeek got personal because he jumped on the fact the stats were rather fuzzy...? Oh dear. :rolleyes:

Thats a common theme in regards to scientific stats - if they are fuzzy, then of course it will get ripped to shreds - you should know that from studying various scientific subjects at university - any information that isn't fully backed up can't really be used.

as it happens, i don't think the NHS can support giving flouride-based treatment to people who need it, mainly because they aren't really the people who go for regular check ups! all made in much more eloquent post by TS above!

I think most people would go, if there was a subsidized program. But as you stated "they aren't really the people who go for regular check ups!", so it must be true! This is generalization, and there are plenty of people in middleclass households who have poor dental hygine as well. You just can't state something like that, without the evidence to back it up.

Do you honestly believe you would have any more luck getting these kind of people to drink tapwater? Especially as the poor dental hygiene is aggravated caused by sugary drinks - i know some people who live off the stuff, and hardly ever drink water: do you think that it would help them? I know that it most probably won't at all, as some people's attitudes you couldn't alter with a sledgehammer.

(and TS, i'm sure you can hold your own much much better than i can - although i cannot confirm or deny your self assessed 'big' status )

Inappropriate, and unneeded. If you intend to state innuendos, then confine it to the realm of the PM please - Cos we don't want to see it! =D

geordie_joe

Originally Posted by geordie joe View Post
No No, lets go drink water with fluoride added to it for 38 years then come back and discuss it,

Any daft !!!!!! can read and write, but lets see how many can survive drinking water for 38 years.

Go on, give me the name of everyone that has written about what might happen if you drink water with fluoride in it, then give me the name of everyone who has drank the same for decades.

OK, that's too hard. so give me the name of someone in here, who is against fluoride, and has NOT cut out the bit where I say I have drank water with fluoride in it for decades.

meekgeek wrote: »

This is such a foolish stance.

Why is doing something for decades, coming to no harm and thinking what you were doing didn't do you any harm foolish?

People shout if they think something might harm them, but people that have actually been harmed by that thing should a lot louder. But we haven't heard those people shouting.

meekgeek wrote: »

I know people that smoked for years and didn't die of lung cancer.

That's nothing, I know people who drank water with what some people refer to as "chemical waste" in it and they didn't die of it.

meekgeek wrote: »

Real Science doesn't work that way.

What do you mean "real science doesn't work that way" I thought that was the way real science worked. You do something, call it an experiment, then measure the results. In this case you feed fluoride to a large number of people for decades than survey the results.

meekgeek wrote: »

A toxic substance ingested by the body over a sufficiently long period of time must have a toxic effect.

That is just not true, there are many toxic substances that your body can process out provided it is not given in too large a quantity.

meekgeek wrote: »

That is science.

No it's not

meekgeek wrote: »

Your argument is ridiculous,

Only because you can see no way round it.

meekgeek wrote: »

but it's pointless to challenge you.

How can you challenge it, your opinion is putting fluoride into water may harm you, my opinion is I've been drinking it for decades, so have millions of others and it didn't harm us.

meekgeek wrote: »

I shall forthwith respect your right to a enjoy a 'village idiot' view of the world,

What is "village idiot" about doing something for decades and not being harmed by it?

meekgeek wrote: »

acknowledge your views and ignore any further comments you might make.

I urge other readers to do the same.

You can do that, and so could others. I won't ask those in my camp to do the same to you because I believe everyone has the right to their opinions, and the right to air them. I may not agree with them, but I will defend their right to have them and voice them.

Before I hit the submit button I will say one more thing.

If there was the slightest evidence I had been harmed by fluoride in the water I would be suing the local health authority for everything I could get, and so would 10's of thousands of others, maybe even millions of others.

The reason why we aren't doing it is because there is nothing wrong with us, if there was we could find someone willing to say it was the fluoride that did it.

simmed

Nobody should be adding any chemicals to my tap water. However, I wouldn't mind if it was proven that it emulates water found in actual rivers and lakes, which we survived off for millennia.

geordie_joe

meekgeek wrote: »

I figured this forum would be populated by people that stood up for their freedoms, it seems not.

disappointed.

It is populated by people that stood up for their freedoms, it's just some don't think the same as you. It's doesn't make them right, or wrong, it just makes them different.

The world would be a sad place if we all thought the same. We'd all be sitting thinking the earth was flat and the sun revolved round it.

Being right or wrong isn't important, having the right to your own opinions and beliefs is.

Evil_Dan

geordie_joe wrote: »

Why is doing something for decades, coming to no harm and thinking what you were doing didn't do you any harm foolish?

Because you hold the belief that "It didn't do me any harm, so it must be good!" However, this is a ridiculous belief. Why? Well, just because it did'nt harm you, it doesn't mean that it didn't/can harm others.

People shout if they think something might harm them, but people that have actually been harmed by that thing should a lot louder. But we haven't heard those people shouting.

Do you mean on these forums, or on that brilliant medium the TV? Just becuase you haven't seen it occur, or heard people say anything to contradict you, doe'snt mean that it hasn't occurred.

That's nothing, I know people who drank water with what some people refer to as "chemical waste" in it and they didn't die of it.

Yeesh...it can't kill you! But it has the possibility to cause damage to the system....

What do you mean "real science doesn't work that way" I thought that was the way real science worked. You do something, call it an experiment, then measure the results. In this case you feed fluoride to a large number of people for decades than survey the results.

That is just not true, there are many toxic substances that your body can process out provided it is not given in too large a quantity.

Examples, and then I'd be inclined to believe you...

How can you challenge it, your opinion is putting fluoride into water may harm you, my opinion is I've been drinking it for decades, so have millions of others and it didn't harm us.

No, you just don't listen to more than one side of the argument.

What is "village idiot" about doing something for decades and not being harmed by it?

No - Village Idiot, because you only follow one side of the argument, and refuse to believe any other viewpoint other than yours.

You can do that, and so could others. I won't ask those in my camp to do the same to you because I believe everyone has the right to their opinions, and the right to air them. I may not agree with them, but I will defend their right to have them and voice them.

If there was the slightest evidence I had been harmed by fluoride in the water I would be suing the local health authority for everything I could get, and so would 10's of thousands of others, maybe even millions of others. The reason why we aren't doing it is because there is nothing wrong with us, if there was we could find someone willing to say it was the fluoride that did it.

Again - just because it didn't effect you, doesn't mean that you can say for definate that it has no adverse affects on the human body. And heres one for you:

Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation (IDOF), a group of over 100 dentists, is demanding an immediate stop to the dosing of all public water supplies with chemical fluoride after a study conducted by the Harvard School of Dental Health found an increased cancer risk in children.

the rest of the article can be found here:
http://www.idof.net/

Evil_Dan

And heres the link for the evidence that you asked for in an earlier post Toothsmith:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm#tab23

Thats the table that gives you the actual findings of the agency's i mentioned.

Hope you find it useful... =D

Caterina

Reading the catfights in this thread I lost the plot long before I could make up my mind whether fluoride is good or bad for you.

As a general rule I want zero tampering (or minimal tampering if zero is impossible) with my food and drink, so I am against mass fluoridation of water.

Caterina

withabix

So if you want no tampering with your water, would you prefer to drink it 'raw'.

Toothsmith

Evil_Dan wrote: »

And heres the link for the evidence that you asked for in an earlier post Toothsmith:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm#tab23

Thats the table that gives you the actual findings of the agency's i mentioned.

Hope you find it useful... =D

Thank you very much. It's an interesting paper - but could you remind me of the point you're using it to make?

The enamel fluorosis mentioned here is said by the authors to be more noticeable on the back teeth than the front (So hardly a need to veneer them!) And even then, barely perceptible.

The moderate/severe fluorosis is associated with high total fluoride load, or high naturally fluoridated water supplies.

I can't see how this backs up any anti-f viewpoint?